Talk:American football

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

List of teams[edit]

I would suggest, we put in this list of teams (copied from the WP article on the NFL) as a table and edit it for traveller use, replacing the links with WV links and adding the sellout streaks

The previous entry was written but not signed by meHobbitschuster (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we don't. The table looks bad, and it contains fields the traveler doesn't need. Tables aren't usually used in WV articles, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Football[edit]

Should the Canadian Football League be mentioned in this article or should another article on it be created or should it be dealt with in another article, such as the "do section" of the Canada article or the individual city articles of the individual franchises? On the one hand the two sports are very distinctive (if not in looks than in gameplay) but on the other hand Rugby league and Rugby Union that are (as far as I know) even more different from each other are dealt with in the same article, as of now: Rugby. I welcome discussion! However I fear I don't know anything non-trivial about the CFL Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of Rugby, I feel that if you know (or even care) about the difference between Union and League, then you probably don't need Wikivoyage :)
The risk of too many articles covering similar sports (at least similar to everyone but ardent fans) is that it becomes a sprawling encyclopaedia instead of a travel topic. I would say you could merge them for now and if someone really wants to write about Canadian Football as a travel topic then fine, more power to them. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Andrew on this, but I could easily see Canadian football eventually becoming its own article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A little off-topic: I am mostly done with the article as far as I know the stuff (plus, I am watching NFL on the other tab and the Seehawks just caught a pick six). How do you find the article thus far? I fear I included too much information on some things, any advice/comments? Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's Australian rules football... ϒpsilon (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It exists. It is a totally distinct sports that shares hardly anything but name and origins with Rugby Football, American Football or Canadian Football, your point being, if I may ask...?Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pagebanner[edit]

I think the default Pagebanner is kind of counter-productive on this topic. I don't know much about formatting and stuff, so how about this

the problem with this image is, that it doesn't represent Canadian Football, as their field is both larger and has larger endzones

or alternatively some variation on this:

a ball, the object of the game

Or alternatively something like this:

with the added benefit of showing something outside of the US and outside of the notourisly copyright loving NFL

I am pretty much open to any suggestion, even other than those images, and of course, the article as a whole needs more pictures Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the game play image. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could this image be cropped to a format that fits as a pagebanner? I know next to nothing on that issue, so I don't want to have a pagebanner that doesn't appear in the right formatHobbitschuster (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of using a gameplay image, but that one would be difficult to turn into a banner. However, I did make this banner, if you guys want to use it. PerryPlanet (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PerryPlanet's proposed banner
I love the banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too am in favor of your banner proposal. If someone doesn't like it, we can still change it. Who is playing whom there?Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the uploader of the original image, it's the Washington State Cougars vs. the USC Trojans back in 2008. So it at least addresses your NFL copyright concern. :) PerryPlanet (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

College football?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Hi. There now is an article on American Football that was mostly written by me. It is mostly done in terms of NFL and Canadian Football League, however, College Football is still missing as I know nothing about it. (as are the NFL sellout streaks). I am posting to find out: Is there somebody knowledgeable about College Football here? Best wishes (will now go back to watching Seattle vs. Green Bay)Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The College Football section is no longer completely empty, as I added something to it, but I'm not much of a football fan, so I'm sure some of you fine ladies or gentlemen could do much better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Getting to London" comes a bit abruptly. Why London and no other cities where games are often played? Also, a banner would be nice :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I included the international series as it is the event most likely to be a travel destination all by itself (besides the Super Bowl, obviously) and unfortunately (thanks, Mr. Goodell) it is also the only event of any NFL games (pre season or regular season) held outside of the USA and will be for the foreseeable future. The NFL is currently making noices about maybe holding a international series game in Cardiff or Fulham, but as of this very day this all still not decided in the least. I am however not really happy with how we deal with the international series as of now. If you know something about it or know who might know more about it, I would welcome your help. As far as I can tell, there is also no mention of it on the London article…Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The NFL's Buffalo Bills used to hold one home game annually outside the US, in Toronto, but this was recently abandoned. K7L (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know.Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Work[edit]

Great content in this article in such short time. Just a clarification requrested on the 'Work' section. If I am a former college player in Europe (which.. I am not) then I can apparently from the article earn €500 to €1000 in Europe. I don't know what timeframe this refers to.. an hour? a game? a day? a week, a month?

Also do any other countries other than Germany and England have such opportunities for American players?

Thanks! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This range is something I heard and inferred from various sources and may very well vary. It refers to Germany and per month. However due to legal (visas) and tax reasons there are usually a lot of other benefits included that aren't included in that figure. Of course the exact numbers hardly get out, but at least for Germany 450€ a month is probably the bare minimum (if you get paid) in terms of cash. At least the top countries (Germany, Austria, France...) all have so called "imports" (American or Canadian players) in their top teams, but the rules differ widely. Back in the "old days" German teams would just head over to the next barracks and get whichever American was willing and able to play for them (or so I've been told). Braunschweig is often "accused" of having a budget in the 1 000 000 € range (per season) and paying even German players. I think the details are to different from country to country to make general statements apart from a "salary floor" which is around all expenses paid plus ~ 500€ per month. However in e.g. Austria there can only be one "import" (defined there as any player who receives financial compensation for playing) whereas in Germany there can be two on the field at the same time and at least 4 on the roster (often there are more on the roster to replace injured "imports"). The website I linked to may shed some light on the issue for those that are interested in stuff like that and the further details should be talked about with the teams. I follow the sport as a fan and have only minimal insight into the financial issues and they are not covered in the press the same way those issues are dealt with in soccer or the NFL (the salary range of people like Tom Brady or Christiano Ronaldo is widely known, that of Casey Therriault (2013&2014 German League MVP, Braunschweig) is not). We could take out the number, but I think it is good to disabuse people of the notion of getting rich off of football in Europe. You can't. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So €500 to €1000 a month gross (pre-tax) salary plus benefits (described by you above) is the normal package? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so, but that is only a very very rough ballpark estimate based on the few things I do know (Germany should be the country with most money to spend on football, though as they have a lot of sponsors and fans) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A further comment: The book "playing for pizza", which I recently read quotes a salary for a Quarterback in the 2000 to 3000 € range per month. As far as I can determine it is quite well researched, but maybe Mr. Grisham somewhat exaggerated the salary. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this video (part of a series on the topic) gives some background by a player/youtuber. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Football / Links[edit]

I know I know, the Arena Football League is frequently seen as not much more than a joke, however, I think that we should at least link to this article from the city or region articles that mention the Arena League and maybe get a list of teams here. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Seeing as we now have maps in many travel topics, would one in this article do any good? POIs could include the NFL franchises among other things... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I made a map for all the current NFL home venues (including Wembley). Would somebody know how to integrate a second map for the Canadian Football League? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

College football in Ireland[edit]

It appears as if there will be another college Football game outside of North America. At lest according to this website Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Louis shuffle - presented by Goodell's merry traveling circus[edit]

To the never-ending annoyance of many in St. Louis and the marginal elation of some in Los Angeles, yet another pro Football team that had moved into the St. Louis area will move out of the St. Louis area in time for the new season. Incidentally it is - after the Cardinals who had arrived there from Chicago left for Arizona - a team that has itself only arrived from the Los Angeles area a mere two decades ago. The move of Oakland (previously known as the Los Angeles Raiders, before that they were the Oakland Raiders) or San Diego (who were the Los Angeles Chargers during their first season) is not yet decided upon but one of the two is bound to happen in 2017. I think we should update our page accordingly in due time. Edited to add: this New York TV personality will now smugly say "told you so". And he'll be right. But still off the air. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL is back in Mexico for 2016[edit]

Well judging from the amount of NFL fan gear I saw on my last visit to Mexico the response is likely to be one big "¡por fin!" in Mexico and a groan in the city that lost one of its home games, but we should update our relevant article(s) to this news. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headed for FTT?[edit]

Thanks to Hobbitschuster's efforts, I think American Football is rapidly headed toward Guide status and a possible run as FTT. I'd like to see a bit more information about the Pro Football Hall of Fame, but that can be easily paraphrased from what's (likely; I haven't checked) written about it in Canton (Ohio). What else is needed, do you all think, before the article can be leveled-up to Guide? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I notice is that some level 2 headings towards the end (Tailgating, High school football and Other football sites) are only followed by one short paragraph of text. Maybe this info could be incorporated elsewhere in the article or the sections expanded? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is an incredibly top-heavy article in that there's a high degree of detail at the start (in some places I think too much; some trimming might be in order) and then far too little detail near the bottom. I don't think that there's a whole lot to say about tailgating broadly beyond what's already in the article; incorporating that section into Understand might be the way to go, since it's a common practice at both NFL and college games. Other football sites definitely needs expanding; only the hall of fame is listed and even that lacks any sort of detail (compare that to the Baseball in the United States page, which has a nice long list of baseball museums and historic sites). Also, when I nominated the Baseball page for FTT, it was suggested that some degree of info regarding how one gets to the stadium and what tends to be available shopping/eating/drinking-wise be incorporated, which is lacking from the football page right now (again, you can look at the Baseball page for how one can go about that). PerryPlanet (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing is that we should go into more detail on the Mexico game scheduled for this season before we can think of featuring. I think the best time to feature would be during the NFL season, preferably in September of any given year. But if we have to fill a spot in the Northern hemisphere winter, this is a rather good thing to fill it with. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another European competition[edit]

First a bit of background: the American Football equivalent of FIFA is perhaps even more of a bickering mess than FIFA and especially in Europe schisms are dishearteningly common. That means that certain international competitionso are hard to stage.

That said, there is yet another attempt at a "European championship of club teams" with at least one of the entries representIng a top team from a top league; here's the link http://www.americanfootballinternational.com/central-european-football-league-adds-danish-polish-austrian-champs/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=American%20Football%20International&utm_content=Central%20European%20Football%20League%20Adds%20Danish,%20Polish%20And%20Austrian%20Champs Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move page[edit]

This should be titled Gridiron football, since it's clearly about American and Canadian football codes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Wikipedia's determination on the topic, I'm not convinced "gridiron" is widely recognized enough to be suitable as a title here. Powers (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Australia is pretty much the only place that routinely uses this term. And Canadian Football is not actually that much different from American Football. I mean, Arena Football has more substantial differences in rules. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lambeau[edit]

What's the purpose of the Lambeau Field listing under "Other football sites"? It's not really an "other" since it's already listed with the Packers along with all the other stadia. There's nothing in the listing that makes it particularly unique compared to the other stadia. Powers (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not the stadium but the other things in the city. I looked at the destination articles under American_football#National_Football_League to find cities where there are other football-related places than just the stadiums themselves. Green Bay is described as one of the most football-crazy towns in the US and the Green Bay Packer Hall of Fame (HOF) was specially mentioned in the listing for Lambeau Field (listings for other stadiums didn't mention anything similar). I forgot to edit the listing to make it more about the Hall of Fame, the statue that is prominently displayed in our Green Bay article and other football-related attractions in the city (if they exist). On the other hand it might be argued that it's unfair to mention one specific team/city out of about 30 so it might be best to just remove the whole listing. Feel free to edit it as you like. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all, NFL teams have a team hall or wall or walk of fame at their stadia, and they have statues of their most famous players or executives. Powers (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Powers here. Never mind NFL stadia, team halls of fame, statues, small museums, etc. are common to pretty much every pro sports venue in North America, even that of Buffalo's minor-league baseball team. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's best to just remove the entry. I'll do it right now. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Green Bay definitely seems like a football-crazy city, some fans are prepared to wait decades for their season tickets: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000847475/article/youll-probably-wait-forever-for-packers-season-tickets ϒpsilon (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need yards be mentioned in any fashion other than "about a meter"?[edit]

I ask because - and you cannot be aware of this unless you are one of the roughly five people on earth that follow American Football as played in Europe - "yards" are not necessarily yards. You see, referees in Germany regularly refer to them as "meters" (which they also aren't), so "Unnecessary roughness, fifteen meters penalty". Why? Well the official AFVD definition is that whichever size the field is should be divided into 120 units of equal length, ten on either side for the endzones and 100 for the field and those units a re qua definitionem "yards", "meters" or whatever you may want to call them. I'm not quite sure anybody ever measures them, but the variation is probably larger than the one between actual meters and actual yards. Anyway, spectators of Football either live in places where Yards are known or where "yards" are not actually yards. And for those purposes "a yard is a bout a meter" is, well... "good enough". Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that not all American football stadia are similar could be mentioned as a "fun fact" in an infobox somewhere, for instance at American_football#Leagues_outside_North_America. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the point is that most people either know what a yard is or it is not actually a yard. If you're flying to the US to watch a game, you will have done your homework to find out what a yard is. Or someone in attendance can tell you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See and do sections[edit]

I think it is better to have sections titled in "house style" in as many articles as practicable rather than having them titled idiosyncratically. What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, yes, though I'm not sure either See or Do is appropriate for the listing of teams in this article. Powers (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For travel topic articles, which are freeform by their very nature, I think it's best to let the subject matter dictate their structure. If that means some end up including "See" and "Do" sections, fine, but I'd be opposed to mandating those sections for all travel topics per policy (how in the world would you shoehorn them into Purchasing a kimono, for example)? As for this article in particular, I'm not convinced there was any problem with the status quo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Downs and plays[edit]

Is a "down" and a "play" synonymous? The former is defined in the beginning of the Rules section, while the latter is used undefined in the later part of it. Clarification is needed. --LPfi (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LPfi: No. Does this make sense? —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks. --LPfi (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever been to an American football game?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

American football is about to be featured on the Main Page in late November. But there's still one thing missing; information about the experience as a spectator at a game. To quote myself from the nominations page: "Is there something else a "newbie" who plans to go see a game should know; how about those stadium amenities and are there perhaps some other fun things than tailgating parties?". As well, per another user's comment at the article's talk page "info regarding how one gets to the stadium and what tends to be available shopping/eating/drinking-wise be incorporated". Overall, it would be great if somebody who actually has ever been to a game could have a look at the article and comment on its nomination. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to several, even had season tickets back in the day. But in Germany, which is really not remotely the same. NFL, not so much, sadly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on this tonite. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my edits, which I hope provide some useful context. (Note also that AndreCarrotflower had some fine additions in the middle there, too.) If you think that there's more that I can add, please {{ping}} me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work so far everyone, I just upgraded the article's status to guide. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

Regarding @Hobbitschuster:'s edit comment when reverting my edits wholesale,

Sorry but I think this slavish adherence to WV:words to avoid is doing this article more harm than good. And often just jettisoning those words without replacing them leaves the sentences less readable or sensible for it

I will ask exactly which of those edits did you disagree with? As we know "recently" just is not helpful for readers. This project has content dating back to at least 2006, so "recently" can be misleading and harmful. We just don't need it in the instances where I removed it. "Note that" and its variants are filler words that sound like we're talking down to readers. We shouldn't do that. Please identify the specific examples so we can discuss those and find better ways of making the sentences readable instead of just restoring the whole lot of them. Ground Zero (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the new edits you made were not quite intelligible but I also agree that this language should be avoided--it just creates problems in the future. I've written many of the offending passages, so really, I should be responsible for cleaning them up. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Justin: Thanks for cleaning this up. It is discouraging when an otherwise respectable editor reverts edits and isn't willing to discuss them. Your clean-up avoided the unpleasantness of me having to restore the edits and call Hobbitschuster on his behaviour. It looks better now. Ground Zero (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Honestly, I get where you're both coming from. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again[edit]

Hobbitschuster has again reverted one of my copyedits without explanation. I thought it could be a fingerslip, so I restored it with a detailed explanation on the comment line. He then reverted it a second time, and again without explanation. I have no idea what his objection is because he hasn't had the courtesy to explain it, even after my invitation to discuss it on the talk page. I will take a guess, and explain my main edit here, for discussion. I replaced:

" Although they are technically the newest addition to the league—having first taken the field in 2014—Ottawa's original team was a founding member of the CFL and played for 120 seasons."

by:

"They are the newest addition to the league, having first taken the field in 2014. Ottawa's original team was a founding member of the CFL and played for 120 seasons."

My version is shorter, easier to read, and says the same thing. As Hobbitschuster has on other occasions shown no interest in justifying his arbitrary reverts, I invite other contributors to comment. Ground Zero (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your desire to take the axe to any text that happens to have traces of lively writing or sentence structure more complicated than what the President produces is noted and nothing new. My objections to it are also noted and nothing new. I do think however that those advocating for change have to say what was so irksome with the old text, besides it using "big words"... And once more, the new text either reads more clumsily or introduces subtly wrong stuff. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The longer text is more elegant. I would leave it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The longer text is livelier and easier to understand. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hobbitschuster, I have no desire to axe text that is lively, no objection to big words, and have never advocated using the President's word soup, which is incomprehensible, including to those tasked with translating it. Simple, clear sentence structure is a benefit to all readers, especially those who are reading in a second language.
You provide no explanation for your claim that "the new text either reads more clumsily or introduces subtly wrong stuff." That's a drive-by criticism of the edit that is lazy and not helpful
I deleted the word "technically", which is neither lively nor elegant and it implies that the Redblacks are in some way a continuation of the Rough Riders. The Redblacks are not owned by the same people, do not have the same players, and do not play in the same stadium as the former team. So the Redblacks are the newest addition to the league without qualification or obfuscation.
Reverting another regular contributor's edits without explanation in the comment line (twice) is rude and agressive behaviour.
I will respect Ikan Kekek's and Mx. Grainger's comments and not press this edit . Ground Zero (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How many players and front office do the "old" and the "new" Cleveland Browns share? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see your point, but if there is a problem in the description of the Brownses, you may want to change it. Are the Redblacks, which do not even share a name with the Rough Riders, anything but a new team? What is the justification for the modifier? Ground Zero (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]